Dismissed¶39

Munishamachari v. K C Krishnappa

Karnataka HC30 Jul 2026RSA/311/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), 21.06.2024, H.P. Sandesh J - RSA 311/2020 (INJ) u/S 100 CPC by LRs of deceased Munishamachari v. K.C. Krishnappa and K.M. Chandrashekharachari - dismissed for non-payment of cost (order dt. 17.01.2024) and non-compliance of office objections; counsel absent - appeal was against decree dt. 29.06.2019 in RA 2/2013 (Senior Civil Judge, Malur) confirming decree dt. 21.11.2012 in OS 158/2012 (II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur) - no merits argued, no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed for non-payment of the cost directed by the order dated 17.01.2024 and for non-compliance of office objections, counsel for the appellants being absent despite repeated time granted and undertakings given. ¶39

Munishamachari Vs K C Krishnappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22561 RSA No. 311 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 311 OF 2020 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MUNISHAMACHARI, S/O SHANKARACHARI SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶10

PARVATHAMMA, W/O LATE MUNISHAMACHARI,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶12

K.M.SHILPI SAMBACHARYA S/O LATE MUNISHAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SARALA W/O HARINATHA,

¶15

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT CHARALA VILLAGE, CHOWDEPALLY MANDAL, PUNGANUR TALUK, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517257.

¶16

K.M.RAGHUNATHACHARI S/O LATE MUNISHAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶17

HEMALATHA W/O CHANDRASHEKARACHARI, C/O BETTANNA

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22561 RSA No. 311 of 2020

¶19

R/AT DODDA DEVANGA STREET, ANEKAL.

¶20

APPELLANTS NO.1, 2 AND 4 ARE R/AT KUDIYANUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶21

SHUVARNA

¶22

W/O MAHESHACHARI B.P. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DODDA AGADI, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106.

¶23

K.M.UMASHANKARACHARYA S/O MUNICHAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT KUDIYANUR VILLAGE POST MALUR TALUK.

¶24

KUMARI LEELAVATHI D/O MUNISHAMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KUDIYANUR VILLAGE POST, MALUR TALUK.

¶25

…APPELLANTS

¶26

(BY SRI T.M.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶27

AND:

¶28

K.C. KRISHNAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KUDIYONUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT -563 130

¶29

K.M. CHANDRASHEKHARACHARI, S/O MUNISHAMACHARI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22561 RSA No. 311 of 2020

¶31

R/AT KUDIYANUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.2/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MALUR , DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.158/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, MALUR.

¶34

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellants is absent. The counsel has not paid the cost in terms of the order dated 17.01.2024 and this Court granted two weeks time to pay the cost and to comply with the office objections. When the matter again listed on 01.02.2024, though the counsel Sri.Amargowda.S undertaken to appear for the appellant and comply with office objections, he has not complied the office objections, even though this Court granted one week time to comply the office objections. Today, the counsel is absent before Court. Hence, the second appeal is

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:22561 RSA No. 311 of 2020

¶39

dismissed for non-payment of cost and for noncompliance of office objections.

¶40

In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36